I have no issues with the 2 episode review process. You can pretty much know if you like a show or not in that timeline. I don't want to waste my time week to week "trying" to like something just because others claim said show is "good".

Or even worse, "It gets really good by midway in the second season.

In 1972 when there were three networks and no DVR, I might be more inclined to give something a bit longer. Chances are my other two choices at that hour were not any better, which is why I'm watching the show in the first place. I have HUNDREDS of choices now.

I think the first couple (assuming he means 2-3 episodes) is fair enough. I always go back to this. How long do you have to watch something to give it a "fair chance"? There's no set rules. Some shows you know, after 2-3 episodes you're not going to like. Some shows you may not like at first but keep watching because you think it will get better, or there's an actor/character that you like and you're hoping it will improve.

With SO much to watch these days, I think the rule is, as soon as you realize you don't like the show, stop watching. That's could be 2 episodes, 2 seasons or it might be never.

What I was saying was that he had cited a specific reason for dropping the show based on the scant evidence of a couple of episodes. If you're not into a show generally after a few episodes, that's fine. But picking one thing you didn't like about one episode and assuming the whole show is like that and thus not worth watching at all isn't, in my book, giving it a fair shake.

So again, I was responding to the specific reason cited in concert with the number of episodes, not the number of episodes in particular.

What I was saying was that he had cited a specific reason for dropping the show based on the scant evidence of a couple of episodes. If you're not into a show generally after a few episodes, that's fine. But picking one thing you didn't like about one episode and assuming the whole show is like that and thus not worth watching at all isn't, in my book, giving it a fair shake.

So again, I was responding to the specific reason cited in concert with the number of episodes, not the number of episodes in particular.

I think that the Pollan issue was actually a pretty good indicator of what was wrong with the show for me. The tone was just off in too many ways. Plot lines that might have been funny or well-done were instead odd or flat or creepy. I can see what you are saying, but I think it was a fair judgment about the show. Too much of it was off in tone or execution and caused the few good aspects to drown in weirdness.

I'm not sure if they mean it's full hour episodes since Sean Saves the World was also cancelled.. I forget if those were back to back or not. (the article DOES mention that other show, it doesn't mention specifically that Hollywood Game Night is replacing _both_ of them)

Can't say that I'm surprised either. I watched the first 3 or 4 episodes, and killed the sp. For me the only thing that worked was the parts of the episodes at work. The whole family thing was just bad. If they made the show about him @ work I would have given it longer.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

__________________"Oh Yeah, Ohh... Ahh... That's how it always starts; but later there's running and screaming."

I'm not sure if they mean it's full hour episodes since Sean Saves the World was also cancelled.. I forget if those were back to back or not. (the article DOES mention that other show, it doesn't mention specifically that Hollywood Game Night is replacing _both_ of them)